Living Small produce market in Basel, Switzerland

Published on July 26th, 2011 | by Steve Savage

4

Toxics: The Long Term, Low Dose Question

Each year, the USDA generates an extensive set of data which demonstrates that modern American consumers face no real threat from toxic pesticide residues on their food.  This is particularly true in terms of “acute toxicity,” or short-term poisoning.  Someone would have to eat thousands to millions times their own body weight to kill themselves with produce.

To many people, that still leaves a troubling question:  “what about long term exposure to low doses of toxic chemicals and combinations of those chemicals?” This question is more difficult to answer.

What We Can’t Know about Toxins and Our Health

When my son was small, he would often answer questions by saying, “I can’t know.”  In a way, that is where we sit on the “long-term, low-dose question.”  Based on the testing that we can practically afford, wee “can’t know”  all the long term outcomes where the rates of cancer or other chronic diseases might be in the range of 1 per million people or less.  We can do a good job of predicting which chemicals are reasonably potent carcinogens and the like, because such toxicity can be detected in a relatively short term feeding study at fairly high rates of the chemical.  Those tests give us a good deal of protection from truly dangerous substances, but it is not really possible to answer the “low-dose, long-exposure” question with this sort of test.  Does that mean that we have to live in fear of the trace levels of man-made chemicals that are in our water and in our food? No.  Here is why.

What We Can Know

Just because we can’t answer this question using rats in a laboratory does not mean we are without encouraging “data.”  This comes in the form of common life experience, and from what we know about protective chemicals in nature.

Want to Avoid All Toxics? Good Luck With That

I have often seen people write that they are trying to “avoid all toxics” in their life.  That is actually impossible. Almost all the foods we eat contain naturally toxic chemicals that are made as defense mechanisms by the plants or animals in question.  These toxins are present at levels which are too low to cause us any problem in the short term.   But what about the fact that we are consuming low, mixed doses of dozens of natural toxins every day?    Few of these chemicals have ever been evaluated for any kind of chronic toxicity.  What if we ask the “long-term, low-dose” question about these chemicals?

The calm response is to realize that our bodies are well equipped for living in a moderately toxic world. The cells of our skin and in the lining of our digestive track only live a few days before they are replaced.  That minimizes the potential to become cancerous because of exposure to toxins.  We also have powerful liver enzymes that chew up toxins of all kinds.  On the whole our bodies do a great job of dealing with the wide variety of toxins that we eat at low rates.  The same is true for both natural and man-made toxins.

Don’t Forget About The Good Chemicals

The other encouraging bit of information is that we are far from helpless when it comes to maintaining our health while eating small doses of toxic substances.  It turns out that fruits and vegetable are excellent sources of other special chemicals which help us to fight cancer and a host of other ills.  Many people turn to the poorly regulated “supplements market” to get these chemicals, but that is not necessary.  The much more natural option is simply to enjoy the diverse and relatively low cost produce which is available to us today.  The bonus is that these products taste great and also provide basic minerals, vitamins, and fiber in our diet.  I will list just five examples of the foods which help to protect us against a wide variety of chronic diseases:

  • Tomatoes: the largest dietary source of lycopene – a chemical that reduces risk of cancer, osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease
  • Grapes: resveratrol in red grapes and wine enhances cardiac health
  • Berries: berries have extremely high levels of various antioxidants that reduce the risk of cancer, improve urinary tract health, and help with memory and healthy aging
  • Asparagus: rutin in asparagus can ameliorate the effects of diabetes and lower blood pressure among other benefits after the body converts it to quercetin-3-glycoside
  • Broccoli: contains lots of vitamins A and C, but also isothiocyanates which stimulate the enzymes in the body that neutralize many potential cancer causing substances

There has probably never been a human society with such ready access to the foods that can protect health and counteract the effects of toxins – natural and man made.  That is why it is tragic when something like the “Dirty Dozen List” discourages significant numbers of people from buying fruits and vegetables.  These consumers then fail to get the very phytochemicals which could protect them – both from the trace chemicals they fear, and from the fearsome chemicals they may not even appreciate (e.g. aflatoxin).

Putting This In Perspective

I am not just saying: “Don’t Worry, Be Happy.”  There are very real toxic threats in the world – both man-made and natural.  We need to pay attention to what the toxicologists and public health experts tell us.  What we don’t need to do is to worry inordinately about trace levels of pesticides or about low levels of most natural compounds.  What we do need to do is to eat our fruits and vegetables!

Vegetable market image from a trip I took to Switzerland a few years ago

You are invited to comment here or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

Enhanced by Zemanta



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

Born in Denver, now living near San Diego. Agricultural scientist for 30+ years with a Ph.D. in Plant Pathology. Have worked for Colorado State University, DuPont and Mycogen and for the last 13 years consulting for all sorts or companies, universities and grower groups. Experience in biological control, natural products, synthetic chemicals, genetics, GMOs and agronomic practices. Have given multiple invited talks on the interaction between agriculture and climate change (both ways)



  • http://www.healthyplants.org Richard

    And to think that EWG rakes in $6 million a year in contributions from poor bamboozled victims who have been brainwashed into believing if you can’t afford organic vegetables its better to eat no vegetables at all. Their dirty list should be outlawed.

    • http://importantmedia.org/members/sdsavage/ Steve Savage

      Richard,
      wow, $6MM. Is that all from small donations or from “charitable sources” like Tides Foundation?

      • http://www.healthyplants.org Richard

        That’s a combined total of “all” the contributions they annually rake in from all funding sources.

  • http://Web Rich Welch

    I am thinking about using this topic or something related (the myth of Organic) for a paper I’m writing. I have been doing extensive research to grab as much information as I can and have found this:

    The fear-mongering, existential side of the debate, headed by existential groups such as EWG, have only one side with no acknowledgement of room for error or doubt; what they say is gospel, and you better believe it. You message is bunk because you are a “corporate shill” (read: have an opinion other than theirs.).

    The anti-EWG side (idk if thats an accurate description, but for the lack of another) just wants to get ALL the information out there, not just 1/2 truths. Of course, this flies directly in the face of everything EWG is doing, so it’s evil.

    I appreciate your attempt to bring a complementary article to the table, but the truth is that the term Organic in the US is a sham that is used to extort ridiculous prices from consumers.

    The best answer for the Organic community is to self-regulate and spread their own message. Soon, the word will be out that Organic doesn’t mean pesticide free, or that there is virtually no actual oversight over organic certification. As a result, the American public will feel like they’ve been rooked and it could scar their business model irreparably.

    I find it amusing how its the same people who seem to feed off of this misinformation over and over again, whether it be the AGW or Organic or Phrenology (the AGW’ers hate when I bring that up.) I’m all for sustainability, lower emissions, safer food and water. I’m not for scare tactics and fear-mongering by special interests groups who’s only purpose is to scare people into donating to them so they can go on scaring people.

    I tried to find their financials, but I am curious to know if EWG actually DOES anything about the issues they champion (fund research, etc), or if putting lobbyists on capital hill is as far as they go?

Back to Top ↑